national communist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2015, 09:27 PM
RE: national communist
(22-09-2015 03:27 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  I'm pretty sure Hitler loved Nietzsche but I don't see anyone blaming Nietzsche for WWII.

These days I no longer intend to comment on serious subject but Nietzsche was NOT an anti semite. I have read all his works and he always spoke highly of the Jews. You are mistaking what his sister, who was anti semitic and later the Nazis did to his works. Altered them basically.

Walter Kaufman is probably still the best biographer he had.

Please do not mistake the man for what became of his works after he fell ill and died. The reason he fell out with Wagner was because Wagner was an anti semite.

Oh and one reasons Nazism came about, was Socialism.

Check out this video. It is a lecture from the US army war college. Why did Hitler lose the war.





Ok back to music and light subjects.
Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
23-09-2015, 11:46 PM
RE: national communist
(23-09-2015 09:13 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 05:42 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Having said that, the serfdom was outdated and needed to change. Revolution was what was chosen. The system set up in its place was quite simply, a failure. As history has shown. Look at what became of Trosky. It was never going to work. Look at the great famine in China.

I'm not particularly familiar with Marx's work so it may just be my ignorance, but I'm not seeing the connection between serfdom and revolution.

If we're running on the Russian Revolution (first or second bears some specification I think), than Serfdom is almost entirely irrelevant, given that the system had been abolished in 1861, a long while before the explosion of revolutionary fervour, and if I recall correctly, the revolutions were won by the working class (as opposed to the largely ineffectual peasants) and superior military action, respectively.

Don't have books with my but I'll try anyway:

Connection between serfdom and revolution will be more about Lenin promises of giving land to peasants than something else. Though at least some peasants supported the The February Revolution, but according to Orlando Figes it was something of fight of the generations rather than something else.

If we discount revolution of 1905 then one can even argue that there was only one revolution, the february one as what bolsheviks done was simply takeover. As for abolishing there still was issue of land, but I don not recall specifics (more could be found in R. Pipes Russian Revolution).

About winning you're mostly right but working class which was small percent of Russian population was in big part peasants in worker clothes. As I remember hunger riots had much to do with February Revolution, also problems in Petersburg garnison are not something to discount.

I can't really agree with superior military action if you're speaking about bolsheviks takeover. During it there was not much of a fight and civil war is another matter. Whites losed it mainly cause of wanting to restore - not exactly - ancien regime and having worse strategic localization not cause of Red military briliance.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: